Hilarious
Lottie.
Apologies about yesterday, I was blindsided with whole day becoming occupied. There still a good chunk of Day 2 I need to read, but I've thoroughly digested Day 1 and here's what I've gotten up to in terms of analysis (there will be Day 1 and 2 analysis on everyone who is still alive). I'm not going to quote every post or note written because that would be really extraneous...don't think anyone wants to read "____ was suspicious of ____ in post #__ because of _______ reasons." If requested I'll provide the relevant posts and quotes.
Begining with
Pom since she just has 1 day and the rest will be in order according to the Mod list
*Also note not completely getting through Day 2 yet I very well might be repeating what others have already brought up yesterday, but you'll just have to deal with it.*
Pom
Day 1 Analysis:
The important point to keep in mind is at this point
Pom had no votes, and she leaves probably not even thinking she’s in danger of being lynched. It was only after she leaves and her peculiar #103 that gets the suspicion and votes going against her. So basically everything she says, if looked at from the wizard’s bias of
Pom knows who’s innocent and her other mates, can be looked at as she’s not stating anything in an attempt to save herself.
For instance in #92, she says she’s inclined to think between the
Gil and
Nerwen battle both are innocent. I’ve used this tactic many many times as a wolf. When the inevitable battle between two people occur on Day 1, and already having the knowledge both are innocent, throwing out a “both are probably just innocents fighting” makes one look better if it just so happens one of them winds up getting lynched. If it’s an argument between a wolf-mate and an innocent, I don’t recall every purposefully drawing attention to the matter. I suppose it’s possible, because
Pom would likely act a different baddie than myself, but I saw #92 and chuckled with the hindsight bias of finding out
Pom’s guilt and I’ve used the same tactic before to look all smart and reasonable. “These two knuckleheads arguing are probably both innocent.” And if one winds up getting the other lynched, just an easy tactic to make it look like you've made a wise, substantial point about something.
And #103 the infamous “keep an eye on the Cop voters” it’s not so much that part which was interesting and led to the wizard getting lynched. It’s her reaction to
McCaber’s that makes
McCaber look innocent. She’s not making these posts with any worry that she will wind up getting lynched Day 1, so why suddenly draw attention to
McCaber’s vote as one that looks to be jumping onto a bandwagon, when interestingly enough,
Pom does the same? It’s funny,
Rikae was the one who originally pointed out unease about
Cop (in 66), based on a recap of banter is really about as useful as banter itself. I said in #70 I didn’t like the vote, not because of the earliness of it, but I didn’t understand what made my banter more gut-feeling bad than the rest (something that
Nerwen also questioned in Post #57).
Pom in 92,
Rikae 93 and
McCaber 94 all say the basic point about not liking
Cop’s vote for me (woah that‘s like an elite army of troll guards to my defense :-/). If anything,
Pom was looking like an opportunistic bandwagoner along with
McCaber. But Pom had a slightly higher ground to stand on as her post came in first out of the 3. So why would a guilty
Pom point this out in #103 if
McCaber was a wizard mate?
-----
Greenie
Day 1 analysis -
Nothing obviously alarming from Day 1, a normal, methodical
Greenie. It’s her actions and end result that is suspect. #110 her only comment about
Pom’s post 103 is “she’s got some nerve saying it.” In #118 it’s a semi-defense arguing it should be disregarded if she was joking, and seen hypocritical if she was serious, but it really doesn’t point to anything. And spends most of her Day 1 posts to steer focus on
McCaber’s opportunistic vote against
Cop, and not on
Pom’s same opportunistic reasons. Given
Pom’s allegiance, and not knowing
McCaber’s, this does look like a subtle, but consistant effort to divert focus off
Pom’s vote and peculiar statement onto
McCaber.
Day 2 analysis -
#201 Agrees with
Nerwen’s point:
Quote:
|
[3]McCaber is guilty and Pom freaked at the fact that both of them had jumped on the same person.
|
This is why she remains “somewhat suspicious of
McCaber”…(My note of interest here: Considering
Greenie voted for
McCaber and gave 3 reasons for it, albeit Day 1, and one of those a “gut-feeling” it still had the appearance of about as reasoned as a vote as one might expect for Day 1. I’m not sure what changed…I would think she would still remain highly suspicious about the fact that
McCaber made an opportunistic looking vote and not attempt to slowly back away from the suspicion if it were earnest suspicions. This does raise the first big wizardly flags, because after trying to steer the focus onto
McCaber the previous Day, given that
Pomwizer was lynched, it seems
Greenie wants to now drop the case). She brings up we may be over interpreting
Pom’s peculiar statement, which makes it seem like she doesn’t want anyone going back to look at her posts trying to put focus onto
McCaber’s vote and not
Pom’s. Too bad, I have.
Definitely suspicious of
Greenie’s actions. In #222
Greenie makes a sudden turn to feeling good about
McCaber saying he made a "shrewd point" that
Rikae was trying to turn focus on him and away from
Pom. When interestly enough,
Greenie was doing the same, she gave reasoned defenses for
Pom’s post in #110, while also putting the focus on
McCaber’s opportunistic looking vote.
-----
Forgot
Bane only has 1 day of analysis to look at too:
Aside from not voting at all, despite giving
Pom as his #1 suspect, looks fairly good so far. Thought there would be more to analyze and go off of for Day 2, but doesn’t show up. Hopefully he does today. Undetermined, but leaning innocent/nothing alarming. He says
Pom's post 103 looks incongruous there is an exchange with
Greenie about this point, so I'd like to hear what
Bane thinks about
Greenie now that we know
Pom's role.
-----
Brinn
Day 1 analysis -
Didn’t agree with her Day 1 vote for
Nerwen, but it wasn’t as suspicious looking as I originally thought. It should be known it’s hard to determine when the banter should end and more substantive posts begin. When it’s a fairly straight forward game, without much in terms of new roles and strategy to consider, all you can pretty much say is IC and banter. There’s nothing substantive to say, until some votes start coming in and you can clearly see “ok where is there a bandwagon starting? Does it look opportunistic or justified?…etc.” Banter tends to weed itself out without the prodding of other members “ok folks we’re at post #42 IC and banter time is up.” Having said that, it seems like an honest philosophical difference about Day 1, since starting out without any clues and yet having to vote early, like Brinn had to, you’re really in the dark with only banter to rely on.
Day 2 analysis -
Reasoning looks innocent and honest (see primarily Post 187). Disagree about some of those she seems to be trusting at the moment (
Greenie), and therefore I’m not going to completely trust her findings, but gives clear insight and opinion on everyone. Makes it easy to see where she stands on everyone.
----
Time to finish the rest of this large crowd....